TRADE SECRETS. The owner of a trade secret is protected against invasion of his rights therein by fraud or breach of trust or contract; Tabor v. Hoffman, 118 N. Y. 36, 23 N. E. 12, 16 Am. St. Rep. 740. So long as one keeps his secret process from dis closure, equity will enjoin any one who dis covers it through fraud from disclosing or using it; Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, 402, 31 Sup. Ct. 376, 55 L. Ed. 502 ; 0. & W. Thum Co. v. Tloczyn ski, 114' Mich. 149, 72 N. W. 140, 38 L. R. A. 200, 68 Am. St. Rep. 469 ; and a purchaser from the owner acquires the same right ; Vickery v. Welch, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 523 (but not the right of action against a subsequent innocent purchaser from the owner ; Stewart v. Hook, 118 Ga. 445, 45 S. E. 369, 63 L. R. A. 255). He may protect himself by contract against its, disclosure by one to whom it is communicated in confidence or restrict its use by such person ; Park & Sons Co. v. Hartman, 153 Fed. 24, 82 C. C. A. 158, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 135. Equity will enforce such a contract ; National G. & M. Co. v. Braendly, 27 App. Div. 219, 51 N. Y. Supp. 93. One who has sold a secret process, for a valuable consideration, will be enjoined from reveal ing it to a third person and the use of the secret will be enjoined ; Simmons Medicine Co. v. Simmons, 81 Fed. 163.
A bill will lie against one divulging the secret, without joining the competitor to whom be divulged it ; Sanitas N. F. Co: V. Cemer, 134 Mich. 370, 96 N. W. 454.
One must not use or disclose to others trade secrets of his employer of which he gained knowledge in his employ; 14 Ch. Div. 748 ; Sanitas N. F. Co. v. Cemer, 134 Mich. 370, 96 N. W. 454; Fralich v. Despar, 165 Pa. 24, 30 AU. 521; see a note in 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 103. An ex-servant, confidentially employed in manufacturing under a secret process, must not use or disclose any knowl edge or information as to it acquired during his employthent whether retained in his memory or existing in tangible form ; an injunction may issue, although the actual de ' tails of the process are not disclosed at the trial ; [1913] 2 Ch. 239, distinguishing [1910] 1 Ch. 336, and earlier cases.
If one honestly learns a trade secret, not violating any contract or confidence, no in junction will lie ; Stewart v. Hook, 118 Ga. 445, 45 S. E. 369, 63 L. R. A. 255; Chadwick v. Covell, 151 Mass. 190, 23 N. E. 1068, 6 L.
R. A. 839, 21 Am. St. Rep. 442; Watkins v. Landon, 52 Minn. 389, 54 N. W. 193, 19 L. R. A. 236, 38 Am. St. Rep. 560 ; in such case, one may sell medicines specified as made ac cording to a secret; Chadwick v. Covell, 151 Mass. 190, 23 N. E. 1068, 6 L. R. A. 839, 21 Am. St Rep. 442.
One who bad contracted to work for five years for another and not to divulge a trade secret entrusted to him was enjoined from divulging it to a third person, as was also the third person from employing him and from using information received from him; Taylor I. & S. Co. v. Nichols, 70 N. J. Eq. 541, 61 Atl. 946; so also in Fralich v. De spar, 165 Pa. 24, 30 Atl. 521. But where a servant denies any intention to divulge the secret, no injunction will issue; S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. T. Mitchell, 188 Fed. 1017.
An injunction lies against the superin tendent of a factory, who has learned its se crets and then broken his contract of em ployment and become employed In another factory which at once began to manufacture the same product; Harrison v. Sugar Refin ing Co., 116 Fed. 304, 53 C. C. A. 484, 58 L. R. A. 915; but where a steel manufacturer, using a secret process entered into a con tract with an employe binding him not to divulge, during the term of the agreement or afterwards, information relating thereto, whether-then had or to be acquired by him, the contract was held to be in restraint of trade and void; Taylor Iron Co. v. Nichols, 73 N. J. Eq. 684, 69 All. 186, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 933, 133 Am. St. Rep. 753. One employed by an optician after leaving his employ, be enjoined from using a list of the names of his former employer's customers whom he had personally examined; Stevens & Co. v. Stiles, 29 R. I. 399, 71 Atl. 802, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 933, 17 Ann. Cas. 140, following 64 L. J. Q. B. (N. S.) 593; Loven v. People, 158 Ill. 159, 42 N. E. 82; so also Simmons Hard ware Co. v. Weibel, 1 S. D. 492, 47 N. W. 814, 11 L. R. A. 267, 36 Am. St. Rep. 755. A servant who has copied his employer's list of customers, to use it in soliciting their cus tom after leaving his employ, was enjoined, and the list was ordered to be destroyed; 2 Q. B. 315. One who has obtained from an employer of another patterns of pumps was enjoined from using or disposing of them; Tabor v. Hoffman, 41 Hun (N. Y.) 5.